10141 2010-07-13 02:29:40 +0000 itemscope is long and not very descriptive. how about just scope and prop. 2010-10-05 13:03:06 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG pre-LC1 HTML Microdata (editor: Ian Hickson) unspecified Other other RESOLVED WONTFIX http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-basic-syntax P3 normal --- 1 contributor ian a.kuckartz ian mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 36781 0 contributor 2010-07-13 02:29:40 +0000 Section: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete.html#the-basic-syntax Comment: itemscope is long and not very descriptive. how about just scope and prop. Posted from: 68.32.157.249 36804 1 a.kuckartz 2010-07-13 19:36:57 +0000 There are several "item..." attributes which form the set of attributes used for microdata. It would not be obvious that an attribute named "scope" belongs to that set. "prop" would be even worse because the "property" attribute is used by RDFa. 38583 2 ian 2010-09-08 00:37:45 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: see comment 1. Also, these attributes are already implemented in various places and changing it now would cause too much disruption (indeed it would likely just be ignored).